posted on August 27, 2001 11:31:24 AM new
Wild animals don't just kill pets and children. 2 adults were killed by wildcats in CA, one a jogger and one a "Walking" Park visitor. The Walking Park visitor had a picture taken of her before she was killed and the wildcat could be seen hiding in the brush waiting to get her. Wolves do kill humans. The reason there is no recent history of wolves killing humans in the US is because we eradicated them and most of there food sources here. The deer populations are rising rapidly in the Eastern US and causing the re-appearance and population growth of preditors. The misguided and mismanaged policy of allowing alligators to flourish in Florida is now causing people and pets to be in peril.
If the tree huggers want wolves,coyotes, non-native snakes, and wildcats around, let them keep them in their own homes with a $1 million bond ( the same goes for Pit Bulls). The problem is that these folks expect the rest of us to suffer the loss of our domestic animals or family members so they can "feel good" that they have done something to "protect" wildlife or feel "special" that they have an exotic animal. Within 5 years it won't make any difference anyway with genetic research the words extinction or endangered species will have no meaning and can't be used as a heart string pulling rhetoric for allowing preditors ro roam around people.
posted on August 27, 2001 12:06:07 PM new
That sounds all well and good. However, predators are a necessary part of the environment. The reason predator species are being reintroduced at all is because we finally got it through our thick skulls that getting rid of them did more harm than good.
Humans are finally beginning to realize that there are food-webs rather than food chains and that removing something from the web without thought can have consequences we might not find out about until well after the deed is done.
A case in point is the dodo. No, not a predator, true, but a prime example. The last dodo was killed in 1681. It took us until the the 1970's to figure out why a rare tree that grows only on the island of Mauritius (former home of the dodo) was dying out--there were only 13 specimens left. Scientists had long puzzled why the trees, which put out healthy fruit each year, were failing to propigate. Turns out that the dodo played an important roll here--by eating the fruit & passing the seed through its gizzard, the dodo weakened the seed's thick protective wall, enabling it to sprout once, er, deposited by the dodo.
It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if in our haste to to totally dominate the planet we eliminated species that are unbeknownst to us key to our own survival...
edited to insert an "it"
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 27, 2001 12:07 PM ]
posted on August 27, 2001 12:18:58 PM new
kraftdinner, no more sarcastic than I
How did I reach my conclusion that the parents are as guilty as Simpson? Most accidents that happen in families homes do not involve the deaths of the children, unless planned. They really are accidents and most of the time, in well adjusted families, the children are saved from that fate. I read the other messages attached to that story in the paper and all agreed the parents should be punished, etc. As I stated previous, I'm not the only one to think this way. Perhaps on AW, there are only 2 of us that think this way, but out there, beyond the realm, there is other living matter.
posted on August 27, 2001 12:30:39 PM new
Bunnicula-Very well said! That's interesting about the Dodo...and you're right, we really have no idea about how the web works for us.
Reamond-I guess we should just completely wipe out all predatory animals on the planet. Of course, then the darn prey animals are gonna become an inconveinence and danger to humans, eating our beautiful lawns, invading our homes, spreading disease. Then we'll have to wipe them out too. Heck, let's just start killing anything that doesn't walk upright. There are inherient risks to living on the Planet Earth. I would much rather take my and my child's chances living near wildlife, than around the only creature that kills for the sheer fun of it...
I'm curious, why do you say "non-native snakes"? A western diamondback rattlesnake (native to Texas) killed my dog a while back. Think we ought to go eradicate the rattler?
This has gotten so far off the track it's not funny. However, the article is about a "pet" snake, kept in the house, that killed the daughter.
The rattler I assume was not a "pet" and was outside when it killed your dog.
A vast difference here between "pets" and snakes left in their natural habitat. Most likely if this snake were let loose in its own domain, it would never have killed a child.
People forget, we actually moved in on the territory of wildlife. They didn't decide to move in on us, build houses, etc.
But to purposely raise snakes and not be sure they're not going to harm your children is negligence on the parent's part. It's like leaving a pit bull alone and telling it not to attack anyone. Will it listen? No! It can't reason. A child can't always understand or reason, but the parent had better.
posted on August 27, 2001 01:09:47 PM new".....the parents are as guilty as Simpson"
Come on JMHO2, it hasn't been proven anywhere yet that the dad/mom were guilty of anything but, perhaps, (gross) negligence. This could just have been a bad accident, as bunni stated, don't you think?
posted on August 27, 2001 01:23:57 PM new
I know nothing about snake behavior, but I know many parents (including myself), who've slept with a baby in their bed. I don't know any that contemplated murder (including myself). All babies survived (including mine).
Some evidence of foul play would be called for, before crying murder, dontcha think?
posted on August 27, 2001 01:28:08 PM new
Humans have flourished without the Dodo, wolves, coyotes, wildcats, etc.. We haven't been dependent upon the natural word for centuries. We do not live in a natural environment. What's more, those that think we should might try living that way for a while and they will change their mind real quick - should they survive. If you want to experience first hand "living natural" try going to a third world village and see how long you can stand it.
Our food processing, medicines, sanitation, and use of energy other than "natural" sources have increased our lifespan, and quality of life beyond any "natural" existence.
We do not need natural preditors around anymore. We are the most efficient and effective preditor on the planet.
What gets my goat is all these actors that move to Montanna or Colorado and fight the environmental fights. These guys bring all the conviences that money can buy to these "natural" areas and then sprew on about the "natural" beauty of the wildnerness, and it shouldn't be developed. None of them live on these vast tracts of land in a tent.
In reality, what they are doing is making it so only they can "enjoy" these areas and don't want anyone else to be able to live there. It is their own private sanctuary and they do not want the commoners around. No developement, no jobs, no you and me around. Not one of them has bought the land and turned it over to the public for park land.
posted on August 27, 2001 01:37:32 PM newNot one of them has bought the land and turned it over to the public for park land.
I don't know for a fact whether or not any actors are involved, but somebody is doing just that:
Q: What is The Nature Conservancy?
A: The Nature Conservancy was founded in 1951 to preserve the world's diverse plants, animals and natural communities by protecting the habitats they need to survive. The Nature Conservancy accomplishes its mission by purchasing threatened lands and waters that support fragile ecosystems and endangered species.
Q: Can members visit Nature Conservancy preserves?
A: Over 90 percent of the preserves are open to the public. Some require reservations and some do not allow visitors due to the ecological sensitivity of the land. Call the local field office of the preserve for more information.
posted on August 27, 2001 01:51:32 PM new
Kraftdinner - and Simpson wasn't convicted either, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. We all know better, don't we? I really don't think it was an accident and I don't think his rolling over on his baby was an accident either.
Didn't you read my original post about the woman who killed her 5 babies, the oldest 2-1/2 years old and got away with it because the doctor didn't believe any mother would kill their kids? She was finally convicted after another case reopened the files.
These things happen and no matter how we fight it we have to realize it's not impossible.
Of course, the dad will be found innocent of wrongdoing again and go on to do what? Keep his pet snakes. I just hope there are no other children in the house.
posted on August 27, 2001 01:57:05 PM new
But, jmho2...
Have you nothing but supposition? The mere fact that "things happen" is meaningless... A little proof would be nice, if you intend to accuse. You scare me.
posted on August 27, 2001 02:12:58 PM new
re: 'wildcat under broccoli leaf....'
You were one of the lucky ones toke
JMHO2, it just seems to me that whenever anything newsworthy happens, it's always linked to the Simpson and Susan Smith cases in it's attempt to show how things might end up. This is all before anyone's been charged.
You're right. These parents could be evil murderers, preying on their own children, BUT, because there's been no evidence, in this particular case, about this being anything more than an accident, I don't think the parents should be condemned yet. Again, if you know more information about this situation than what I've read in uaru's link, then you have every right to feel the way you do.
posted on August 27, 2001 03:02:27 PM new
Kraftdinner and due to your tact is the reason I'm replying to you.
It is supposition, true, but so was the accident 5 yrs ago with their 3 month old. The coroner supposed it was an accident, based on the fact the child was smothered and Daddy said he accidently rolled over. I wonder if they could tell the difference between dad's body and a pillow. If I rolled over on a human being, I think I would know it. Wouldn't you?
I don't like discussing Susan Smith but I love to discuss the Ramsey case. Do you think they're innocent? I don't.
Toke, why don't you take another "one" as your name suggests and go look under your broccoli leaves again. What you may be seeing is a slug, not a python and not a wild cat. Slugs like broccoli and are more apt to fit under the leaf.
You scare me too, because you can't see both sides of the scenerio. Why don't you wait til the coroner decides that it's just another everyday accident claiming the life of still another child in this pitiful family and then tell me how wrong I am. LoL
edited to add a word.
[ edited by JMHO2 on Aug 27, 2001 03:03 PM ]
posted on August 27, 2001 03:40:47 PM new
If spaz is correct in his great article beginning his thread "Bush Admits AW Threads Influence Policy," Bush could pick up some great ideas for budget cuts to avoid taking more money from SS. For instance, it should become evident that a considerable amount of money could be cut from the bloated DOJ allocations by eliminating the lengthy and expensive investigations and trials and moving immediately from the accusation to the verdict. Quick, efficient, and cheap.
posted on August 27, 2001 04:24:54 PM new
This is a message board, not a court of law. If it's my opinion that this guy has been killing his kids, it's certainly within my rights to say so. We express our opinions on every other subject, why must we be politically correct in regard to this one? What we say or do here has no impact on the investigation -- if I thought it did I would certainly be more conservative in expressing my speculations. But it doesn't. It's just opinion and with that comes the freedom of expressing them.
I agree that a court of law should proceed on a presumption of innocence. But to insist on the same standard for a message board is absurd. Sure, it's also your right to insist on "innocent until proven guilty," but that's just another viewpoint as far as I'm concerned.
posted on August 27, 2001 04:35:22 PM new
To assume any person is guilty of something before any evidence is presented doesn't make sense to me spazmodeus & JMHO2.
If you assume guilt, you'll read/see things a certain way to justify your thoughts. Same if you assume innocence, unless facts prove otherwise.
Just like you have your opinion, it's just my take on the subject, nothing more.
posted on August 27, 2001 05:54:55 PM new
Kraftdinner, Toke will never be as eloquent as you are when confronted with an opposing opinion.
I've always respected your posts and I believe you've respected mine. Let's just agree to disagree this time and come out smiling.
We'll see who is innocent or guilty eventually. Hopefully someone can keep us abreast of their local news.
I presented the facts as we know them to various people at a dinner tonight and all said "dad is guilty." How funny that total strangers to this board feel that way.
As dear old mom used to say, it all comes out in the wash. We shall see.
